CJEU overrules Romania’s High Court in major statute of limitations dispute

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Thursday, July 16, that the interpretation given by the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding the statute of limitations for criminal liability is not compatible with European Union law in cases of serious fraud affecting the EU's financial interests.

The ruling, given in the "Lin II,” has major implications for the Romanian judicial system and has effects on criminal cases that are still pending before the courts. 

In May 2022, Romania's Constitutional Court issued a ruling regulating the grounds for interrupting the limitation period in criminal matters, applicable to the period 2018–2022. Subsequently, the High Court first ruled that the Constitutional Court's decision applied retroactively back to 2014. The ruling led to the closure of thousands of criminal files, including some high-profile cases of corruption and influence peddling.

The issue was referred to the CJEU in the "Lin" case, which resulted in two rulings concerning the statute of limitations - Lin I (June 2023) and Lin II (July 16, 2026), according to ProTV.

The Lin I case

The Lin I judgment of July 24, 2023, concerned several Romanian citizens sentenced to prison for tax evasion. They challenged their convictions, arguing that under the national standard of protection regarding the retroactive application of the more favorable criminal law, their criminal liability had been prescribed.

The Romanian citizens relied, on the one hand, on two decisions of Romania's Constitutional Court issued in 2018 and 2022. Those decisions invalidated a national provision governing the grounds for interrupting the limitation period in criminal matters, resulting in almost four years during which Romanian law provided no grounds for interrupting that period.

On the other hand, they relied on a 2022 decision of Romania's High Court of Cassation and Justice, which held that this absence of grounds for interrupting the limitation period also applied to offenses committed between 2014 and 2018, based on the principle of the retroactive application of the more favorable criminal law.

The Court of Justice of the European Union was essentially asked to rule on whether these various decisions by Romanian courts were compatible with EU law, in particular with the provisions aimed at effectively combating fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union.

In “Lin I,” the CJEU ruled that Romanian courts were required to disapply the national standard of protection regarding the more favorable law as established by the HCCJ's 2022 decision. At the same time, it found that the Romanian Constitutional Court's decisions of 2018 and 2022 were compatible with EU law because they implemented the principle of legality in criminal matters and created a systemic risk of impunity of a lesser magnitude than the application of the national standard established by the HCCJ's 2022 decision.

Lin II 

Following the Lin judgment, however, in 2024 the HCCJ ruled that Romanian courts could not disapply its 2022 decision without violating the principles of legality in criminal matters and the prohibition of "lex tertia,” a principle that prohibits courts from combining different provisions from successive laws to create a new, hybrid legal regime.

"In the Lin II judgment delivered today, the Court essentially finds that this approach adopted by the HCCJ is not compatible with EU law," the decision published on the CJEU's website states.

The CJEU further stated that the prohibition established by the Lin judgment preventing Romanian courts from applying the HCCJ's 2022 decision follows established case law of the Court and was therefore foreseeable.

Moreover, the Court emphasizes that in the Lin judgment it had itself found that the 2022 decision created a systemic risk of impunity for serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.

In reply, Romania’s High Court, led by the controversial judge Lia Savonea, said in a press release that it always applied European law in good faith as a whole, harmoniously taking into account both European Union law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The institution defended its approach to the statute of limitations in criminal liability by highlighting a connection with the protection mechanism provided by Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Political reactions

The complicated case sparked reactions from Romania’s political sphere as well. Despite the fact that the CJEU referred to decisions reached by the Romanian High Court, president Nicușor Dan shifted the blame to the Romanian Parliament, saying it was to blame because it had failed to amend the law following a Constitutional Court decision.

"The Court of Justice had an opinion, the High Court had an opinion. [The former] came to clarify this matter. The decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are binding and will be respected in Romania," Nicușor Dan stated, cited by Digi24.

By comparison, Liberal deputy Raluca Turcan said in a Facebook post that the country was facing a profound crisis in which state institutions were found facilitating the escape of criminals instead of delivering justice. 

She described the CJEU's decision as being of "exceptional gravity," emphasizing that concerns regarding the rule of law were no longer merely political perceptions but certainties established at the European level. "Who can still claim that everything is fine? It is particularly serious that the High Court of Cassation and Justice has violated the commitments undertaken by Romania," Turcan wrote.

radu@romania-insider.com

(Photo source: Viorel Dudau|Dreamstime.com) ...